THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 17, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. Welcome to Ottawa, where we’re all back and raring to go after a restful summer. I hope everyone took the opportunity to regroup.
Before we begin, I would ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation. I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan. I’m a senator from Quebec, and I chair the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting from my left.
Senator Forest: Welcome back. Éric Forest, Gulf senatorial division, Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Welcome back. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Good morning. Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Welcome. I am Senator Tony Loffreda, Montréal, Quebec.
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Welcome. Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we will resume our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, which was referred to this committee on March 19, 2024 by the Senate of Canada.
We are pleased to have agents of Parliament with us today. It’s a great honour to have the following people together in the same group. Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada; Harriet Solloway, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; Philippe Dufresne, Privacy Commissioner of Canada; The Honourable Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, who probably went to bed late, so we’re extra grateful to have you with us this morning.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation. We’ll begin with opening remarks. Ms. Maynard, the floor is yours.
Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada: Thank you for inviting me to discuss the Office of the Information Commissioner’s Main Estimates. Since this is my first appearance before your committee, allow me to provide a brief overview of the access to information system and my mandate as Canada’s Information Commissioner. To understand my mandate, it is important to recognize that I am an independent agent of Parliament whose role is defined in Part 1 of the Access to Information Act.
Specifically, the Act provides a right of access to information in accordance with the following principles: that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific, and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.
[English]
The Treasury Board Secretariat, or TBS, holds the overall responsibility of administering the Access to Information Act. This involves providing guidance and tools to government institutions with respect to their obligations in responding to access requests they receive.
Access-to-information requests can be made for any records under the control of a government institution. There are approximately 260 institutions that are subject to the act.
My role as Information Commissioner is to investigate complaints relating to the processing of the requests by these institutions. Typically, complaints are submitted to my office when requesters are not satisfied with the amount of time that it is taking for an institution to respond or if they believe that they have not received all of the information to which they are entitled.
Enhancing efficiency has been a priority for me since my first day on the job. For fiscal year 2023-24, I am pleased to report that my office resolved nearly 25% more complaints than it registered. This helped us make real progress against our backlog of complaints.
Unfortunately, that progress and my office’s ability to fulfill my independent legislative mandate is now at risk. This is because the additional financial resources that I received this fiscal year to cover negotiated collective agreement increases are not sufficient, resulting in a structural deficit.
This unforeseen financial predicament arises from the TBS method for allocating funds to cover salary increases under new collective agreements they negotiated. The TBS omitted 29 full‑time equivalents from their calculation, impacting employees within my Investigations and Legal Services teams. Importantly, this has resulted in a 3% budget shortfall, which represents the salary of six investigators.
Most of these employees joined my organization after I was granted order-making power following amendments to the act in 2019. They support me in discharging my additional obligations and the responsibilities that come with them.
[Translation]
For a small organization like mine, this is a significant strain. Every employee plays a vital role, and losing even a few could deeply impact our ability to fulfill our mandate. Ultimately, this budget shortfall will spell longer delays for those seeking information from federal government institutions.
[English]
Although I am an independent agent of Parliament, I do not have the ability to request funding directly from Parliament. Whenever my office needs additional funding, I am obliged to submit a request to the Minister of Justice, who has his own priorities, who may or may not send my request to the Minister of Finance and eventually to the Treasury Board for their approval. This lengthy process forces me to seek funding through the very institutions that I am investigating. Frankly, this does not reflect my independence.
In that context, last June, I had to submit an off-cycle proposal to the Minister of Justice requesting just over $400,000 in permanent funding to maintain current resource levels and operational capacity.
In response to my inquiries to officials at the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Justice, I was informed that I am no different than any other department and that this was the only option available to me, despite my independence as an agent of Parliament. I am still waiting for a response to my funding request. When I learned that I would be appearing before this committee today, I reiterated the urgency of my request to the Minister of Justice, and I was able to arrange a call with him, but he is not available until mid-October.
I strongly believe that funding for access to information should be seen as more than a budget line item. Access to information is not a service government chooses to provide Canadians; it is a quasi-constitutional right and a legal obligation.
[Translation]
Of note, other agents of Parliament present today, namely the Chief Electoral Officer and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, have independent funding mechanisms built into their legislation.
A more efficient funding model that reflects my independence as an agent of Parliament would be not only an investment in democracy and public trust, but also a concrete and positive step forward for transparency in our country. With that, I will be happy to take your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Harriet Solloway, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and to appear alongside my distinguished colleagues.
[Translation]
My office investigates allegations of wrongdoing in the federal public sector, such as gross mismanagement and serious breaches of codes of conduct, as well as alleged reprisals suffered by public servants who take the brave step of coming forward. We owe all Canadians a duty to expose wrongdoing in the federal public sector.
At the same time, we owe every person who places their trust in us — including those who find themselves accused of wrongdoing — an outcome based on an impartial, serious and timely consideration of all the facts.
[English]
Over the past year, the relevance of the office’s mandate has grown ever more apparent, as we have experienced a sudden and unforeseen surge in disclosure submissions. Each submission can contain multiple distinct allegations, each of which requires admissibility analysis and a fulsome response.
[Translation]
There is a mounting backlog of files that cannot be addressed with current resources. As of August 31, 2024, 140 files are pending admissibility analysis, and another 47 investigations have yet to be completed. Without an injection of resources, there is a risk that investigations will not be completed in a timely manner. The risk includes the erosion of the availability and quality of documentary evidence and witness accounts. If we cannot effectively investigate and expose wrongdoing, that will diminish accountability and eliminate a vital component of checks and balances that enhance confidence in public institutions. In addition, the inability to investigate complaints of reprisal in a timely manner would leave public servants vulnerable and exposed to hostile workplaces and possibly impact their employment.
[English]
Also of concern, the mandate to provide funding for legal assistance to disclosers, complainants and respondents is in jeopardy, as allocated funds are quickly dwindling.
A very modest increase in Budget 2024 allowed the office to add some human resources and to replace an antiquated case management system that predated the office’s inception in 2007. Despite this, due to the unforeseen surge, the office is experiencing a financial crisis as resource limitations are jeopardizing our ability to implement our mandate.
The impact of this financial crisis cannot be overstated. Without additional funding, there is a significant risk of breaching the obligations established under the very act that governs our work.
In response to this crisis, my office has reviewed and refined operational practices, leveraged technology and streamlined processes wherever feasible. Despite efficiency gains, these efforts have not been sufficient to address the crisis.
Consequently, I have submitted an off-cycle budget request intended to respond to the challenges that we face. Based on projections, the additional funds would enable us to reduce the backlog to a manageable level over three years and meet future demands, mitigating the risks and possible impact.
[Translation]
In the meantime, my team continues to work diligently and professionally, doing their utmost to provide a safe space for whistle-blowers and ensuring an unflinching commitment to impartiality that protects the rights of all.
[English]
I thank you for the opportunity to address this committee and welcome any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Solloway.
[Translation]
Philippe Dufresne, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Committee members, I am pleased to be here to discuss the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Main Estimates for Fiscal Year 2024-25. As Privacy Commissioner, it is my mandate to protect and promote individuals’ fundamental right to privacy. This includes providing advice, guidance and recommendations for protecting personal information, and overseeing compliance with Canada’s two federal privacy laws: the Privacy Act, which applies to federal government institutions; and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, Canada’s federal private-sector privacy law.
[English]
Protecting privacy is one of the paramount challenges of our time, as personal information is increasingly sought after in the digital age, in a world where information flows transcend borders and jurisdictions.
Canadians deserve to benefit from innovation, good governance and the strong economy, while at the same time maintaining this fundamental right to privacy.
Last week, I welcomed a unanimous Federal Court of Appeal decision which found that Facebook’s practices between 2013 and 2015 breached Canadian privacy law. This was a critical acknowledgement that international data giants, whose business models relies on users’ personal information, must respect Canadian privacy law and protect individuals’ fundamental right to privacy.
The privacy issues and risks that we face today as a society are vast and continue to grow in complexity and scope, creating pressures on my office’s resources.
[Translation]
To help meet these challenges, I have identified three strategic priority areas where I believe that we can have the greatest impact and where the greatest risks lie if they are not addressed. These priorities are maximizing my office’s impact in promoting and protecting the fundamental right to privacy; advocating for privacy in this time of technological change, especially artificial intelligence; and championing the privacy rights of children. These priorities align with major privacy trends outlined in my most recent Annual Report to Parliament, which was tabled in June. The trends include the proliferation of artificial intelligence; growing concern for the privacy rights of young people; and the ongoing rise in digital connectivity and concern about how digital information is protected.
[English]
My annual report also highlighted the increasing threat and severity of cyberbreaches in Canada and around the world. For example, while last year there were just slightly more incidents reported to my office than in the previous year, they affected twice as many individuals.
In this context, I launched an investigation into the cyberbreach at Ticketmaster Canada, and we’re examining this incident that affected the personal information of millions of individuals worldwide.
As information flows across borders, I am also prioritizing collaboration with domestic and international partners and stakeholders to amplify our collective impact in protecting and promoting privacy. Joint investigations with Canadian and international counterparts are an important example of how we collaborate.
In the coming months, I will be concluding two important joint investigations into TikTok and OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Both investigations are being conducted with my counterparts in Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta.
My office is also collaborating with my counterpart in the United Kingdom on a joint investigation into the data breach at the global direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe.
My office also collaborates with international data-protection partners through global forums and initiatives. For example, in July, I released a report from an international online sweep that found that nearly all — more than 97% — of the websites and mobile apps that our organizations reviewed used deceptive design patterns that could influence individuals to give away personal information.
Next year, as Canada assumes the Group of Seven, or G7, presidency, I will host the G7 Data Protection and Privacy Authorities, or DPA, roundtable. I look forward to building on the important G7 DPA work, which includes our G7 DPA statement on generative AI.
I recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. This will support information sharing and enforcement cooperation between the two regulators.
[Translation]
In addition to international engagement, my office has joined with the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to create the Canadian Digital Regulators Forum so we can share information and resources in areas of common interest across regulatory sectors. Last week, we welcomed the Copyright Board of Canada as a member.
Finally, on the issue of financial matters specifically, in the 2023 budget, my office received temporary funding to address pressures related to privacy breaches and a complaints backlog, as well as to prepare for implementation of Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Implementation Act.
[English]
While those temporary funds provided necessary and immediate support, it is essential that my office be properly resourced on a permanent basis to deal with the increasing complexity of today’s privacy landscape and associated demands on my office’s resources.
To address this, we will continue to present fiscally responsible funding requests and will aim to maximize agility by reviewing my office’s governance and processes to ensure that we are as effective and efficient as we need to be.
With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dufresne.
The Honourable Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you about the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s budget for 2024-25.
[English]
The commissioner’s office consists of around 50 professionals who are doing everything possible to ensure some 3,200 people subject to either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons avoid conflicts of interest. Our office has a twofold purpose: one, to help elected and appointed public officials avoid and manage conflicts of interest, and two, to facilitate the movement of qualified people in and out of public service. These principles reflect my approach to the role of commissioner. Ultimately, our goal is to safeguard public confidence in the integrity of Parliament and government institutions.
[Translation]
All experienced and competent people will, over time, be exposed to potential conflicts of interest. To me, this means we need to provide credible advice and guidance that is helpful, innovative and timely. You will see this in our educational offerings throughout the year.
[English]
Our Main Estimates include funding to ensure the continued growth of the office’s education and outreach work. It allows us to develop subject-specific education sessions to meet the needs of those subject to the act or code. This past spring, we launched an online course tailored to meet mandatory training requirements of MPs. We are currently developing a similar on‑demand course for public-office holders under the act.
Our budgetary process is unique in that our budget is not approved by any minister. We prepare the Main Estimates for what the office will require in the following year. We submit our Main Estimates to the Speaker of the House of Commons for consideration. He signs them, and we then transmit them to the President of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board then includes our Main Estimates as part of its overall submission to the House of Commons.
[Translation]
As for the numbers, there is no increase to our operations budget. We asked for and received an increase to our personnel budget of just under 3%, which will be used largely to fund economic salary increases and salary increments. Eighty‑three per cent of our budget is dedicated to salaries and the employee benefit plan.
[English]
I would be happy to answer the committee’s questions regarding our office’s finances and operations. Thank you.
[Translation]
Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about the 2024–25 Main Estimates for the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and explain some of our priorities for this fiscal year.
The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, which includes the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, is funded under two distinct authorities: an annual appropriation, which covers the salaries of indeterminate staff, and an ongoing statutory authority for all other expenses.
This funding model ensures the independence of my office by ensuring access to the funds required to prepare for and deliver elections, which, as you know, may occur at any time.
The annual appropriation for 2024–25 amounts to $60.4 million and represents the salaries for some 550 indeterminate positions.
Planned spending under the statutory authority is reported annually to Parliament for transparency and accountability. For the 2024–25 fiscal year, $198.9 million has been earmarked. This includes $77.7 million for the agency’s operating expenses, $75.3 million for election readiness activities to maintain a certain level of capacity in case an election is called, $29.6 million for service improvement initiatives and modernization projects, and $10.9 million for remodeling and adapting our workspaces to reduce our rental space in accordance with Treasury Board direction.
[English]
As we are under a minority government, the agency must maintain a level of readiness to be able to deliver a general election at any time. And while the redistribution exercise for the creation of the new electoral boundaries was completed last year, the transition to the new boundaries continues to impact our readiness activities.
As of April, it is now established that the next general election will be held under the new map with 343 electoral districts. However, until Parliament is dissolved, any by-elections will continue to be held under the current electoral districts. That means that Elections Canada must continue to operate under two sets of maps with returning officers appointed for each.
The agency must also ensure that all systems and databases required for such things as production of voter information cards and publication of election night results continue to operate under the current map, while mirrored systems reflecting the new maps are maintained and ready to be deployed overnight in case of dissolution.
As we prepare for the next general election, the agency has also undertaken a number of critical initiatives to support its operational capacity.
Elections Canada has launched a project to replace its legacy payroll system, which is no longer supported. A commercial payroll solution will allow the agency to simplify and automate the business processes for paying the 230,000 to 250,000 workers required to support the election. The new Dayforce solution, which is the one that the government will move to in a couple of years, is currently in the implementation phase with a target deployment date of late spring 2025. Depending on the timing of the election, Elections Canada must be ready to deliver an election using either pay system.
Elections Canada is also in the process of moving to a new data centre. The agency relies on two main data centres. One uses a private cloud hosted in Canada and developed with a secure private sector partner that was launched in 2019 and that continues to serve us well. The other is a traditional data centre operated by Shared Services Canada that no longer meets our needs.
Our objective is to complete the migration of all assets to a new data centre by December 2024. I’m happy to report that we are making very good progress and that, while the work is not yet completed, the new data centre is already in operation. It was used in the by-elections yesterday and would be used in a general election.
In terms of service improvements, a key initiative as we modernize our electoral process is the introduction of electronic lists of electors that will allow voters to be served at the first available table in their designated polling location. This will make the voting process much more effective, reduce wait times and improve services to electors while maintaining the traditional paper ballot. Electronic lists are also the foundation for future improvements, such as allowing voters to vote anywhere in their electoral district.
A small-scale pilot of the electronic list solution was successfully conducted during the March by-election in Durham. I am planning to test the solution again, with some additional functionalities, in a by-election later this fall.
As we prepare for a general election, a critical step is finding a private-sector partner to supply, deploy and support the hardware that would be used at polling stations. A competitive tendering process is under way and will help determine the scale of the deployment for the next general election. My objective, once I am fully satisfied that we are ready for a secure deployment, is to deploy electronic lists in a limited number of districts in October 2025 and to expand in future elections.
I want to be clear. There will be no electronic lists if there is a snap election. This is for an October election. It will be relatively small scale, and we will expand in future elections based on the experience of that election.
[Translation]
We are also undertaking a range of other initiatives to make the electoral process more inclusive to electors who face barriers. This includes expanding advance voting services in remote Indigenous communities, a pilot project to include Inuktiut on the ballot in Nunavut, and the development of an app to allow blind and partially sighted electors to verify their ballot independently. I would be happy to expand on those.
As we prepare for the next general election, I want to reassure the committee that electoral security, including protection against foreign interference, continues to be a priority.
We have ongoing relations with government security partners and, in particular, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. We are also expanding our public education and outreach activities to better inform Canadians on the voting process and electoral safeguards, as well as to guard them against misinformation about the electoral process.
Thank you for inviting me today. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll go on to questions. We have five minutes for the first round.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I’m going to start with Ms. Solloway. I know you have not been in the position for very long.
I was looking at your website, and a couple of comments struck me. One is that you indicated the office is receiving an unprecedented number of disclosures of wrong doing. You continued to say, “. . . it is in the public interest to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of public servants.”
It seems over the past year or so that there are a lot more media reports regarding what’s happening within the public service.
I know that within your office you’re doing individual investigations, but it seems to me the problem is more pervasive than that. When you look at reports from other individuals or organizations within the government. I know, for example, that the Clerk of the Privy Council indicated a problem within the public service, the Procurement Ombud. I recognize that investigations are necessary, but it seems as if there is an overarching problem within the federal public service. I wouldn’t exactly refer to the public service at this time as the golden age of the federal public service.
Is there any initiative under way that would address the issues relating to the problems within the public service? I think that it is broader than your office and I know your office would have to be involved, but it would seem to me that it’s multifaceted.
I would like to know, is there any initiative under way to address the ongoing problems within the public service?
Ms. Solloway: Thank you very much, senator, for your question. I don’t know. I wish I did, but our mandate is really very specific to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and reprisals that are well defined under our act. Even the word “wrongdoing” is defined in quite a definitive way.
A broader look would not be something that would fall under our mandate as it currently stands. I wish I could answer, but there is really not a lot that I can say.
Senator Marshall: When I looked at your website and also reading reports in the media, it seemed to me that the individual investigations are increasing, increasing, increasing, so it seems as though we’re looking at the trees but we don’t see the entire forest. There is a bigger problem here.
I would be interested in hearing the views of anybody else on the panel. Ms. Maynard, I have read a number of reports regarding your office. I would be interested in anyone’s views as to whether the public service is becoming more politicized, especially since we’re on the brink of an election or there will be one within the next year.
Ms. Maynard, for your office you did single out the Department of National Defence in one article, but what I find as a member of the Finance Committee, 10 years ago, if you asked for information from senior public servants, you would get an answer; if they didn’t have it, they would send it in. Now what I find is that we’re sort of on a roll where you get less and less information, information that was readily provided five years ago. Now, they don’t have that information with them. Or they will commit to sending it in, and we never get it or we get something that doesn’t answer the question.
I would be interested in hearing the views of all the panellists regarding do we need something broader to look at what is happening within the public service? Also, do you think that the public service is becoming politicized? Is that going to be a problem?
Ms. Maynard: Thank you for your question. I can’t really answer the question with respect to politicization, but I can tell you that there is definitely a culture of secrecy that has continued to creep into the public service.
The act was put in place in 1983 not to limit the amount of information that was proactively disclosed or voluntarily disclosed by the government, but to put some limits and exception in various limiting ways what kind of information should not be provided, but not to stop it from being provided. Unfortunately, what we see in our office is that often when information is being vetted or processed, people are looking at it as what is it that I am not going to provide? What is it I’m going to redact from the information? Instead of looking at, can we provide the entire documents on a discretionary matter or proactively? Disclosure seems to be the exception and not the rule within the public service.
Senator Marshall: Is it fair to ask you if you think that the major problem you’re having is at the political level? Is it the case that at the political level, they don’t want to provide the information or the budget? Or do you think that there is also an issue with regard to the public service, that there is probably some reluctance such that public servants might be thinking that they could fall out of favour with the politicians? Are you able to express an opinion on that?
Ms. Maynard: Every institution is different. What we see is that when a minister, deputy minister or DG ADM have good leadership skills, and are promoting transparency within their institutions, we don’t have a problem with the institution, normally. But if we have an institution that doesn’t get the message from the top that information should be provided, disclosed and allowed to go out to explain the decisions and the actions that are being taken by this government, then it does trickle down to the institutions. I believe it is a leadership issue, and again, we have some institutions that are really good. They talk about access during their meeting at the executive level, where it’s not a priority for others.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here. Mr. Perrault, we just went through a by-election, and we observed something that’s becoming more and more common: many, many candidates on a ballot that was almost a metre long.
Do you think we should have some rules or tools we can use to manage this relatively new and onerous phenomenon without trampling on with democracy?
Mr. Perrault: That’s an excellent question. Thank you for asking it. This situation is the result of a court ruling that found the $1,000 deposit to become a candidate unconstitutional. That, in itself, is a good thing.
However, in the last few by-elections, people have been using that decision to make a point. The right to run for office is a protected right, no matter the individual’s motivations, and it is my sworn duty to uphold that right. At the same time, this situation raises accessibility issues for voters with low literacy or visual impairments, who find it very difficult to deal with such a ballot.
That’s why I believe we need to revisit the rules. I plan to address Parliament in the context of Bill C-65 so we can assess the possibility of tightening up some of the rules, such as the number of signatures required in support of a person’s candidacy.
Senator Forest: Was the ruling based on the fact that the $1,000 deposit limited access? What was the justification for the ruling?
Mr. Perrault: If I were to sum it up simply, it’s that the $1,000 deposit had an arbitrary impact because wealthier people could run for frivolous reasons and would not find the $1,000 deposit to be an obstacle, whereas it could be an obstacle to people who were serious about running but didn’t have the resources.
The point is that financial criterion didn’t really reflect whether the individual was serious or not.
Senator Forest: As far as the electoral redistribution exercise is concerned, I understand that we’re looking for fairness in terms of the demographic weight of each elector for Canada as a whole. However, when we look at the situation in Gaspésie, with a riding that includes more than forty municipalities, we end up with a kind of inequity or democratic deficit.
We only have to think of the MP who was elected last night, who represents one or two municipalities, as opposed to another MP who has to represent the interests of some forty communities. Is equitable access to our elected representative a criterion that should be taken into account in the electoral redistribution exercise?
It remains a very delicate exercise, I grant you.
Mr. Perrault: Indeed, it’s a sensitive and delicate exercise. I’m glad I am not the one who has to draw the lines. We have independent commissions to do this, and I think it’s an excellent system. It goes without saying that the commissions must take the population into account. At the federal level, we’re not talking about the number of voters, but the overall population, which is a nuance with regard to the situation in Quebec.
Independent commissions must also take into account geography, riding history and, ultimately, the effective representation of voters and communities. So it’s a whole set of factors to consider, and I think they have the tools they need.
I intend to submit a report that closes the task that just ended and addresses possible improvements. I think the commissions have a great deal of latitude in drawing constituency lines, and it’s up to them to exercise it to the best of their ability.
Senator Forest: What seems to prevail is a balance with room to manoeuvre in terms of the population as a whole; this seems to be the most important determining factor in drawing this famous line that sometimes produces results where belonging to the electoral district is very diluted.
Mr. Perrault: The demographic factor is certainly the motivation for the revision that takes place at each decennial census, and it’s the primary factor, but it must be balanced with other considerations.
We tolerate fairly wide margins of deviation where the federal government is concerned; we’re normally talking about plus or minus 25%, but it can go beyond that when circumstances justify it. Compared with other countries around the world, we have a fairly high tolerance for deviation from numerical equality. Again, each commission must exercise its judgment as to the best way to draw up the ridings after hearing from the people in the communities and the members of the House of Commons.
The Chair: I just want to interject, if I may. It’s rare that I do, but the field of electoral law is something I know a bit about.
Have you thought about limiting the number of official agents to one candidate? They’re all people who have the same official agent. The role of official agent, by definition, has a certain character… It has to be independent of the others, otherwise it can give an image of organization [Technical difficulties] and that can affect the democratic process. If you limited the number of agents to one candidate, maybe you could solve part of your problem without coming back to the issue of deposits.
Mr. Perrault: You’re right, I think it could be part of a solution. I’m not sure it can be considered in the context of Bill C-65, which deals with the issue of signatures. There will be a discussion in Parliament about signatures. Do they have to be sole signatures —
The Chair: I was talking about financial officers. You may not even need to change the law.
Mr. Perrault: I need to change the law for that too. I agree with you. I’m looking for the best vehicle.
Senator Gignac: Bill C-65 was introduced in 2021 and received second reading in the House of Commons last June. It has not yet been passed in the House of Commons and will then go to the Senate. So we’re not out of the woods yet.
Let’s look at the probabilities of all this happening and Bill C-65 being passed before the next election: It may not be passed in time, based on what’s happening in the other place. Will we be caught up in what happened in Toronto and yesterday in LaSalle-Émard, with metre-long ballots? You’re saying there’s nothing we can do about it, including our president’s suggestion on an administrative or technical level, without changing the law? You must have some tools in your tool box. Could you tell us more?
Mr. Perrault: The Canada Elections Act is extremely prescriptive and must be interpreted in such a way as to encourage the exercise of the right to vote and to be a candidate. I’ve looked and I’ll look again at what can be done. I think we need a legislative change.
That said, for those who have followed the activities of the Longest Ballot Committee, it’s not clear whether they intend to maintain this activity in the context of a general election; they’ve done it mostly in the context of by-elections. They were active in the last general election, but with a much smaller ballot — we were talking about twenty candidates.
Senator Gignac: We encourage you to take a look at this.
We’re going to switch gears. I’m going to go to Ms. Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada. Thank you for being with us, and thank you to all the other witnesses.
I’d like you to tell us about your departmental results and performance indicators. I’d like to congratulate you on the fact that your turnaround times for concluding administrative investigations have improved significantly. Of all your targets, this is probably the one that has improved the most, but it’s also virtually the only one, from what I see in your departmental results.
Can you talk to me about what’s going on? Why is it more difficult with the other performance indicators? With what you’re asking us to do in terms of increasing the budget, what are you going to target as a priority in the coming year?
Ms. Maynard: The work we’ve done to become more and more productive and efficient is on the investigation front. Once the file is assigned, we manage to improve our turnaround times. However, we don’t have control over the number of complaints we receive each year, and I only have a certain number of investigators who can look into a certain number of files. What takes time is assigning the file to an investigator. The purpose of the request for additional funds is to have a team that can tackle our inventory, which is growing, unfortunately. We’ve managed to reduce it in the last two years, but I had a 10-year inventory when I was appointed commissioner. Now it’s three years, plus a few files that are even older. My goal is to have a process that allows us to respond to requests that arrive in the year they are received. Right now, I have neither the financial resources nor the team to do that; we’re barely managing to keep our heads above water with what’s coming in, what’s going out and a few more files.
Senator Gignac: I’m going to continue on departmental results, but I’m going to go to Mr. Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
I’d like to congratulate you because one of your targets has been met, that is, the percentage of official recommendations has been applied by departments and agencies; that’s good news. For the others, according to your latest departmental results and performance indicators, you’re having trouble meeting certain targets. What is your priority for next year? Since you set the targets yourself, I’m curious to know what you’re going to focus on.
Mr. Dufresne: We’re still struggling; there are improvements being made, but we haven’t hit the target yet, particularly on the issue of service standards for decisions involving complaints. This is an area where we have requested additional funding to deal with the backlog. We received additional funding, which enabled us to close the gap. It’s a challenge; the number of complaints is increasing and the complexity of complaints is significant, whether in the public or private sector. We also received additional funding for the issue of privacy breaches, so impermissible disclosures, and for our ability to advise on those issues and do those investigations.
When I talked about my three strategic priorities, I said that the first was to maximize the effectiveness of protection and promotion. That means we look at our internal processes, we look at how we’re structured, we look at our partnerships with the provinces and internationally, but I’d like to see an improvement in terms of the time spent handling complaints over the next few years.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Smith: Ms. Maynard, I wanted to follow up and ask you: How many complaints does your office receive annually with respect to access to information? How has this trend progressed over the last few years? How does your office work to tackle them?
I know we have received a graphic, but there wasn’t a lot of explanation in the graphic except arrows going here and there. For an old athlete, hit in the head too many times, it’s sometimes hard to understand. Could you give us some background on that?
Ms. Maynard: On average our office receives around 3,600 cases per year, but in the last three years, with COVID having an impact, and also because of one institution — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — received over 200,000 requests per year. They received over 150,000 requests a year from people asking for an update on their cases. We had to do a systemic investigation because in that year my office received a total of 8,000 complaints.
It’s not manageable, and because we don’t have, as I said earlier, control over what we are receiving, that amount was overwhelming. The year after, it was over 7,000. After that, it went down because we did a systemic investigation, and we were able to provide Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, with solutions to reduce the number of complaints. Unfortunately, what we have seen this last year is that the number of requests has not reduced, and IRCC’s backlog is increasing as well.
All this to say, now the numbers have gone down, and we are able to close over 4,000 cases a year, but we still have a backlog of files that are in —
Senator Smith: What is your annual —
Ms. Maynard: I have about 65 investigators that do full-time investigations. Ninety-nine people are working on investigations. That includes legal services and anything that we are providing as guidance on the website. I have about 25 people working in internal services because we have the same responsibilities as any other department in terms of reporting, financial, human resources and information technology, or IT. Everything is done by this small group.
Senator Smith: Is it fair to assume that you’re looking for more money like some of the other departments? If so, what is the best way of approaching this subject, because it’s obviously a sensitive subject within the civil service?
Ms. Maynard: As I said in my opening remarks, I am now facing a deficit because we haven’t received the amount that we should have received to cover the collective agreement increases. But that’s just one tip of the iceberg. To be able to do more investigations we need more employees, but my focus right now is to get a sufficient amount to pay the people that we hired to do the work that we have been given to do in my mandate.
Senator Smith: What impact is that going to have on your productivity?
Ms. Maynard: If I cannot receive this amount to cover about six people — and for big departments, this is peanuts, you know? For us, it’s a huge impact. It could be around 600 cases that won’t be investigated this year because of this lack of finances.
Senator Smith: Do you feel you have the people who are adequately trained to be able to handle this potential volume if you get additional funding?
Ms. Maynard: We are very lucky. We have amazing directors and team leaders that are training our people. Even during COVID, we were able to be completely productive. We didn’t stop investigating. And so now, yes, we do have the people to do the job. I just don’t want to have to cut anybody.
Senator Smith: One of the ideas and questions that came up regarding access-to-information requests is over redactions. You have noted in the committee and other places that there is a fear of sharing too much information and that this culture must change. What type of conversations is your office having with department heads as well as the government to ensure this culture of over redacting is changed?
Ms. Maynard: I meet with institutions often. I meet with the units that are responsible for responding to access requests twice a year. My office is meeting every institution every two weeks to talk about their backlog or complaints and how we can help.
What we’re seeing is that the system is overwhelmed. The units are not properly resourced. The management of information in the government is really bad. So when you’re looking for one document, you may go through electronic documents, millions of pages, to find what you’re really looking for. There are a lot of things that need to be done, and we provide them with a list of lessons learned and best practices from other institutions.
Definitely, we need more tools. We need more resources provided to these teams.
Senator Smith: What is the impact on the morale of your group?
Ms. Maynard: We are never going to lack work, so I can tell you that — people are happy to — we are doing something for democracy. The role that we have is really important, and my team knows that.
Senator Smith: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of the witnesses. My question is for Ms. Solloway. Last year, when you appeared before the Senate in connection with your appointment, I had the opportunity to ask you about the findings made by your predecessor in 2020, characterizing Correctional Service Canada’s failure to address harassment by a group of prison staff as part of a systemic problem that amounted to gross mismanagement.
I noticed in your case report of March 2024, there are a number of examples again. In fact, I visited the area where that gross mismanagement complaint originated from and they are still having issues around water quality for prisoners, which is horrendous when you consider the findings you made.
Also, when we were doing the Human Rights Committee report, we found that throughout our investigation and our review of the human rights of federally sentenced persons, in every location, staff wanted to meet in camera to provide information and whistle-blower types of information about what was happening.
I’m very concerned about how you anticipate ensuring the remediation of these repeated issues of gross mismanagement within CSC, in particular the culture of racism, misogyny and abuses of power within CSC and other departments, and how you’re looking at addressing those.
Ms. Solloway: Thank you for your question, senator. What we do is receive disclosures of wrongdoings. We analyze them for admissibility to ensure that they meet the criteria established by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, or PSDPA. When it fits within our mandate, we investigate, issue a case report and present it to Parliament. So that is really the extent of our mandate. We are dependent upon receiving complaints. At this point and time, the only circumstance under which we can self-initiate is when something is uncovered during the course of an existing investigation. We don’t have the mandate to just simply initiate an investigation other than in that specific context.
So the only thing — or what we can do in the context of our act is to investigate these allegations of wrongdoing and bring them to light through a case report to Parliament. That is our role at the present time, and that is what we’re doing.
Senator Pate: Given these findings of gross mismanagement and of harassment within, for instance, Correctional Service Canada, what steps are you taking to ensure whistle-blowers have protection from reprisals? We heard that although the protection is supposed to exist, in fact, the reprisals continue.
Ms. Solloway: It’s troubling, to say the least. What we do is when we are made aware — when somebody files a complaint of reprisals under the terms or under the circumstances prescribed by the act, we investigate. We move to investigate with a very low threshold when it comes to reprisals. In fact, I don’t have the breakdown with me, but our investigations of reprisal complaints have increased over the last year, but regrettably, I don’t have those statistics with me. I am happy to provide them. We do have them. I just don’t have them with me.
Senator Pate: That would be great.
Ms. Solloway: Happy to do that.
Again, we are dependent on receiving a complaint. It is not something that we self-initiate. As long as we receive a complaint, we can initiate an investigation.
Senator Pate: I also have a question for Mr. Perrault as the Chief Electoral Officer. We have seen since the 2015 federal election that the rate of prisoner voters has reduced. I’m sure you’re aware of the allegations of a number of incidents where there have been lockdowns and other methods to prevent prisoners from voting. I’m curious as to what you’re seeing in terms of that. Also, if you can speak to how you have investigated the decrease in voter turnout in prisons and what measures you’re taking to ensure that folks inside can exercise their voting rights.
Mr. Perrault: Thank you for the question. We do work with Correctional Service Canada’s staff to administer the vote in institutions. Certainly, in the context of the pandemic, there have been situations that were more difficult to deal with in those circumstances. I would be happy to write to this committee and expand more on that. I don’t have the answer here with me in terms of the rate and measures that are being done to address that.
Senator Pate: That would be great. Thank you. In particular, an issue has been raised by the correctional investigator and the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights about the concerns that pandemic measures have been used to continue to restrict prisoner access to issues. If you could address that as well, that would be great.
Mr. Perrault: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you to all these representatives of organizations, who have important roles to play. My questions are for Ms. Solloway, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, along with her team, in April or May. They concern your budget and your performance indicators, to use my colleague’s expression.
I understand that your budget, more or less consistently, has oscillated for years between $5.8 million and $5.9 million; this year, it’s up to $6 million. This increase is essentially due to inflation — you may even be below the inflation threshold. Are we reaching a critical point? On your website, the first message that appears indicates, in other words, that you won’t be able to process files quickly, because you have too many files and you lack resources.
Are you having discussions with the Treasury Board Secretariat to increase your budget?
Ms. Solloway: Thank you for your question. Yes, indeed, we submitted a fairly substantial off-cycle budget request, given that we haven’t had a budget increase since 2017. We received just under a million dollars for this fiscal year.
Despite inflation and the need to renew our technology systems, we experienced a rather sudden increase in the number of files to be processed. In August last year, we received 61 submissions, whereas in August this year, we received 140. The number of files to be processed has really increased unexpectedly, and we do need help.
With your permission, I’ll give you another statistic. I believe the pie charts appear in your briefing materials. You can see that in April 2024, so just a few months ago, around 26% of our files had a turnaround time of over 90 days. However, in September, so right now, 85% of our files have been backlogged for more than 90 days.
Obviously, despite these increases and the risks I decided to take with the budget, I cut everything I could just to add a few analysts and investigators. However, the situation can’t last, because I’m really taking a risk with the budget. Even with these efforts, the caseload and backlog are building up.
This is truly a crisis. We’re reaching a situation where we won’t be able to fulfill our mandate. One wonders whether investigations that have to wait two, three or four years because of a lack of resources will have an impact or not. Some evidence may not be found. The impact on individuals may continue throughout these three or four years. I think it’s safe to say that we won’t be able to continue to fulfil our mandate.
Senator Dalphond: The number of whistle-blowers has grown exponentially over the past two or three years. It has practically tripled in the space of two years. Isn’t there a danger of sending the wrong message? Filing a complaint is risky. In particular, you could be reprimanded.
Ms. Solloway: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: Is it worth filing a complaint if it’s only dealt with two or three years later?
Ms. Solloway: I completely agree that this question will be asked and that it is likely to increase the despair these people feel. If the person has reached the point where they need to file a complaint, many things have already happened and they are often already in distress. I’m talking about cases that fall within our mandate, not other complaints.
Yes, it’s true that this will damage working life and the sense of community in the public sector.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: My question is for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Welcome to our committee. You did state that protecting privacy is a challenge and a fundamental right; it definitely is. Privacy rights are becoming increasingly more important. Too often we hear about data breaches, identity theft, and rightfully so Canadians are worried about how their personal data is stored, protected and used.
I noted in your departmental plan that Canadians are worried that businesses and the federal government don’t adequately respect the privacy rights. In 2023-24, only 39% of Canadians felt businesses did a good job at respecting their privacy rights, while only 58% felt the same about the federal government. Those numbers are concerning.
In the growing digital economy that we are in right now, what can your office do to help build greater trust? I mean, trust is the currency of every relationship, and trust in our governments and corporations and make sure Canadians are confident that their privacy rights are being respected.
Mr. Dufresne: Thank you for the question. Indeed, we are using all of our tools to do this. We have the tools of promotion, communication efforts, and promotion of important court decisions like the Facebook decision that came out last week. This allowed us to highlight some of the expectations in terms of meaningful consent, as well as key messages to organizations about their privacy policies and how they have to be better so that Canadians can understand what they are being asked to consent to, and what are the impacts of this information being collected, transmitted and used.
We are doing a lot of work with Canadians directly, government departments, and with organizations. We are issuing guidance on key issues like artificial intelligence, privacy of employees and so on. The promotion efforts are there; they are going to continue.
In terms of our compliance work, we are focusing some of our investigations. I’m fortunate to have the authority to initiate investigations. We have done that in the context of TikTok. We have done that in the context of OpenAI. We have investigations dealing with important privacy breaches. You have mentioned the security of information. We are looking into Ticketmaster, privacy breaches within the federal government in terms of the moving services organizations, and on the terms of genetic information. So we have these major investigations that will bring guidance and clarity to Canadians.
At the moment what we lack is we do not have order-making powers. So we are making recommendations and then we are hoping that organizations are going to comply with that. That is why Bill C-27 which is currently before Parliament and would provide my office with order-making power is important. That is a gap that we need to be correcting.
In terms of Canadians’ trust that their information is protected, this is an area where privacy law was, in many ways, visionary, because 20 years ago in private-sector privacy laws in Canada, the principle of safeguarding information was hugely important, and it is very relevant in the context of cybersecurity breach. This needs to be brought forward.
There need to be obligations, for instance, on the federal government to provide bridge notification to my office. Currently in the Privacy Act, that is not a mandatory legal obligation. It is from a Treasury Board policy. We need this to be in the law. I have made recommendations to Parliament that for the private sector — although there is a legal obligation there — it should be more timely. We should get those notifications earlier. It’s important that we be made aware because then we can provide advice. We can help the organizations and make them better. We are looking at partnerships. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, with the Federal Communications Commission, two weeks ago. Cybersecurity is going to be part of that. We can exchange information and best practices. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security is another organization we can work with. This certainly touches the issue of privacy, but it goes beyond that.
Lastly, with regard to privacy impact assessments, I have been making recommendations since my arrival as privacy commissioner. This needs to be a legal obligation when departments are developing new tools. There is much work that needs to be done. We are continuing to do it, and we are going to be using all the tools at our disposal.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. I think it is important to communicate our success stories so that Canadians will feel confident and will know that our privacy is being protected. In the second round, if I get an opportunity, I will discuss the main risks we are faced with in protecting that privacy and how we can further enhance Canadians’ trust that we are mitigating those risks. Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: My question is for Ms. Maynard. In your opening comments, you mentioned that your funding model differs from other independent agents of Parliament. You specifically mentioned that you need to submit your budget to the Minister of Justice. Could you provide a brief overview of your funding model and some comments on why your budget lacks the level of independence that the other agents of Parliament have?
Ms. Maynard: Currently, out of eight agents of Parliament, there are three that have an independent mechanism to get their funding. Two are with us, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, also has his own mechanism to get finance. For us, we are treated like any other department. We must provide our request through a minister, even though we don’t report to ministers. My minister is the Minister of Justice. I’m under his portfolio in terms of finances. I must provide him with a request, and if he chooses to support it, he sends it to the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board after. There is a long process, and three different departments have to support a request from our offices when we ask for extra money.
To me, that is contrary to the word “independent.” When we investigate complaints received against these departments, we have the same obligations. I issue orders against these departments, so it makes you wonder. Right now, I’m also in court to defend some of these orders or to enforce the implementation of and compliance with some of these orders. You wonder, how am I supposed to pay for these activities if I don’t have the additional resources I need?
Senator MacAdam: Is there any connection between the need to modernize your act? You cited hearings at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that you would like to see some amendments to the act.
Ms. Maynard: There was an amendment in 2019 which provided me with order-making power, which was an amazing authority with regard to amendments to the act. But none of the other dispositions were reviewed, and the promise to review them in 2020 didn’t happen. Now we are hoping that in 2025 the act will be reopened for legislative review. Having an independent mechanism inserted into the act would definitely be a good amendment among other things that need to be modernized.
Senator MacAdam: As a former auditor general, I really appreciate the significance of this issue you raise; so important as an independent agent of Parliament, but yet you don’t have independent funding. It rings clear for me. I sympathize with your issue for sure. In your 2024-25 departmental plan, you mentioned that it appears that no amendments to the Access to Information Act are on the immediate horizon, and that you will press for new approaches to making information available through means other than access requests in order to provide relief while you wait for those amendments. Can you speak to some of those new approaches that you had in mind with those comments?
Ms. Maynard: Currently, part 2 of the act legislated the proactive disclosure portion, and it is not under my authority to investigate such proactively disclosed information. But I think it goes beyond that. It should not be legislated. The government should be providing information to Canadians about their activities, the decisions they make and the policies they are implementing without being asked. The access-to-information request should be the last resort to obtain information that is about service to the public, which is information that belongs to Canadians.
I believe that proactively disclosing the information on all of the decisions and actions being made would limit the number of requests, and it would help my office to focus on specific complaints. It would allow the Access to Information and Privacy, or ATIP, units to respond to requests that are outside of the proactively disclosed information or to refer people to the information that is already available. That would be a good step toward transparency.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My question is for the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Dufresne. I’m interested in what you were discussing in terms of your strategic directions or initiatives regarding OpenAI and ChatGPT, as well as the protection of children. Could you elaborate on those two things you discussed?
Mr. Dufresne: Thank you. It speaks to the theme of protecting the fundamental right to privacy for current and future generations. We are looking at technology and at how our present is quickly and dramatically changing, at how we can adjust to that as a society and how we can protect children who are vulnerable and are great users of digital technology, whether in schools or anywhere else.
Highlighting those priorities was a way to signal that we are going to put that lens toward the use of all our tools. For example, with regard to compliance tools, when we receive or initiate complaints, we ask ourselves how this is impacting kids and how we can protect them. Our investigation into TikTok has a specific focus on younger users. We are looking at the consent model. We are looking at whether the organization is doing enough to meet its obligations toward all of us, but we know that this is an organization that has a significant number of younger users and children.
In terms out of our complaints mechanism and our policy approaches, we have issued a statement with our provincial and territorial counterparts on the protection of privacy of younger persons, and we have called on organizations to have privacy-friendly practices to make sure you are not nudging kids into disclosing more than they should. This summer, we have conducted a sweep with international partners of a number of websites, and we have seen a number of organizations that are not compliant with this. They are using a psychological tool to manipulate people — adults and kids — into giving more information than they should. They are making it hard for us to decline to share our information. If you want to do that, you have to dig deep with four or five clicks, whereas “accept all” is easy. Sometimes, if you want to refuse to share your information, they are using what’s called “shaming,” saying, “oh, well, we are sorry to see you go; oh, you don’t want to save any money, so you are going to make this bad choice.” These are all things that we have called out to say we can’t have that, particularly not with kids.
In terms of technology, again, we have our eye on the developments of technology, whether it’s biometrics, facial recognition, or artificial intelligence. We have issued a declaration with provincial and territorial counterparts setting out our expectations in terms of ethical and responsible use of AI. The government is doing work on that as well and has issued its own guidance, but we have done it in the context of privacy principles. So things like limiting collection and making sure that you need data to build these models, and ensure that you are not collecting more than you need. Make sure that people are aware of what’s happening. Make sure that you are safeguarding that information. We are using our promotion tool as well as our complaints tool. That’s why we are investigating OpenAI, and that investigation will be determining whether that organization in the context of ChatGPT specifically complies with privacy law in Canada, and if it doesn’t, what are the recommendations to do so?
Senator Kingston: Thank you. Are there additional legislative tools that you need in order to proceed with these things that you are discovering more and more?
Mr. Dufresne: Well, we do. Certainly, we are going to use the tools that we have until Parliament gives us more tools. So we are using our complaints mechanism, we are using our promotion tools, we are using our relationships and our work with international partners. We are going to continue to use all of these things. Last week, we had the Facebook decision, a very important decision that highlighted that the consent mechanism and data safeguarding were not up to standards. The Federal Court of Appeal has given my office and Facebook 90 days to come up with a consent order to provide remedies for Canadians. That’s an example of us using the tools that we have. But we need more tools. We need more modern tools, and Bill C-27 is an example of where Parliament could give my office order-making powers, so my decisions could be executed right away. That saves time and money for Canadians.
Fines are another element. I don’t have the power to issue fines and penalties. One of the challenges is sometimes there is a very real financial incentive for an organization to collect data. If they are not facing any financial consequences for that, it is very difficult for them to convince their decision makers. So fines I have said are not something that I want to use very frequently, but it needs to be there because it focuses the mind of decision makers. There need to be consequences for breaches, and we need to limit those incentives for organizations to do the wrong thing. Those are some of the examples I would like to see in the legislation.
Senator Kingston: Thank you very much.
Senator Ross: First of all, thank you to all the witnesses and to my fellow senators for great questions today.
I have another question for you, Ms. Maynard. You talked about the change in potential funding to create more independence and that that would be part of the modernization that the act needs. What are other specific things that you think should be the highest priority to modernize the act?
Ms. Maynard: Thank you for the question. We have been asking for the act to be reopened to consider things like the delays that it takes for consultations between departments. Right now, there are no statutory timelines that are imposed on institutions when they receive a request for a consultation from another department, and that’s the main cause for timelines being missed.
We are also asking for cabinet confidence to be finally provided and that I be given the authority to review cases where cabinet confidence exclusions are being used. Right now, I am not allowed to see the documents, so I can only accept affidavits from the departments to the effect that the documents they are not disclosing respect the requirements of cabinet confidence. I believe that having an independent review of these documents would allow, again, Canadians to trust that the exemptions are being applied appropriately and correctly according to the act.
I have a report I can send you. Also one thing we have noticed is that my orders are not currently — I’m not allowed to get my orders certified by the Federal Court so some institutions have decided to ignore the orders instead of challenging them. So I had to apply for mandamus to force compliance with some of the orders. There is definitely something that is missing in our act that doesn’t make the order seem to be that binding. Even though they are legally binding there is no mechanism to have them be respected apart from a mandamus application.
Senator Ross: I would like to see that report. Thank you very much.
Ms. Maynard: I will.
Senator Ross: I have another question for Mr. von Finckenstein. What sort of education do you provide to those people who are subject to the act, and what can you tell me about the trend of the increase in the requests for support or requests for information that you have been receiving?
Mr. von Finckenstein: We concentrate very much on the education of people who are subject to conflict of interest because most people don’t know it and they are new in their position. As you know, it is MPs and senior officials that fall under my regime. For MPs, it is mandatory by law that they have an initial training. We provide that training to them online in segments, so they can do it at home. Also in their spare time we also give information sessions for them. But more important, the very first time that you get elected you get a questionnaire from me asking you to fill out basically every facet of your private life and your financial life and that of your spouse. Then comes a lot of discussion; this doesn’t conflict with the act; these are assets you have to get rid of or this is a position that is incompatible with your job et cetera. What other remedial efforts; can we put it in a private trust? Or if you are a minister, we say can you establish a screen so that this information doesn’t come to you; it is stopped beforehand and is given to somebody else, one of your colleagues or parliamentary secretary — so prevention is very much an education exercise vis-à-vis MPs so they understand what the issues are and what the mechanisms are, et cetera. It has to be updated annually. That’s for MPs. If you are a senior official, the first part is the same. You get the questionnaire. We do the same thing. We also provide sessions on request that we offer to them, and we also have a service. We really push and try to make sure it is in their conscience that when they exercise their duty they have to do it.
Now, there are other part-time appointments which are only public officers; they are not reporting public officers so they don’t go through this exercise. They just have to comply with the act. If they want information from us, we give it to them, obviously, et cetera. But it is really up to them to live up to their obligations that are set up. These are mostly Crown corporation directors or for other Crown agencies. These are part-time employees. They are part time. Why? Because they have another life. They don’t want to give that up. They don’t want to do it full time. If you are a reporting public officer and it’s a full-time position, you can’t have another job. So for them it is problematic. They have to inform themselves they are subject to the act. We will reach out and let them know when they are appointed, here is the act et cetera; we are there if you have a problem. But I don’t appoint we are not specifically responsible for them. They basically rely on the information that we send and what the organization itself has as a code of conduct. Every Crown corporation, every Crown organization has a code of conduct that deals with conflict of interest and they have to abide by that. Hopefully, that answers your question.
Senator Ross: It does. I did notice that in the last five years that requests for advice have gone up probably 60% or 70%, which is about 1,000 per year. What do you attribute that to?
Mr. von Finckenstein: Probably because we have a better information system. Thanks to the internet everything becomes visible very quickly and becomes an issue so you want to be ahead. For MPs, ministers, ministerial staff and reporting public officers, each and every one of them, all of the 3,500 has assigned a specific person in my office. So if you have a problem, you phone, for example, Pierre. Pierre is your man. If you can’t reach Pierre, someone else will sub for him, so you will not be unanswered. We try to do our utmost that you feel comfortable. People realize, hey, let’s do that. I’d better be careful. I don’t want this to be on the internet tomorrow or something like this, so they call us beforehand.
Senator Ross: Thanks very much.
Senator Marshall: I want to continue on, Mr. von Finckenstein, with regard to the questions that my colleague was asking. You said in your opening remarks that there are over 3,000 office holders that fall under your purview; is that correct?
Mr. von Finckenstein: It is 3,500 and that includes the elected MPs.
Senator Marshall: I understood now from your response to Senator Ross is that all levels aren’t required to provide the same information and all levels aren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny; is that correct?
Mr. von Finckenstein: The full-time employees are all at the same level of scrutiny. Public office holders, which are usually part-time appointees to boards, et cetera, are subject to the act, but they don’t get the same care and individual attention from me. They do not have to fill out a questionnaire and discuss the issues. They are basically left to use their own devices and the advice of the corporate secretary of the organization to which they belong.
Senator Marshall: Sometimes you receive complaints and you make an investigation, but do you also undertake your own reviews and investigations? If you do, are you able to share with us how you go about doing that? Like if you have 3,000 people that fall under your purview, how do you decide which individuals you’re going to focus on?
Mr. von Finckenstein: First of all, you’re going to the tail end. The front end is the prevention, dealing with and managing it. The investigations are the tail end when somebody has either complained or something has come to my attention that there is something going on through the media or somebody else, whistle-blowers or whatever that there may be something. There is a two-step process.
First of all, I look at whether there are reasonable grounds to start an investigation. Sometimes these are just malicious messages or sometimes there is just not enough evidence. There is some mention in an email or something like that and that doesn’t constitute reasonable grounds. So I have to make the initial decision if an investigation is required.
Once I do that, I inform the person, say the allegation that came through, these are the following allegations, I will do an investigation. And I want to require testimony from you and all your documents and I’ll send you a subpoena. I summon you to come forward with all of these documents. I’ll put you under oath and ask you questions. If that’s not enough, I’ll ask third parties the same thing, your partners or business associates, et cetera. Come, give me the documents, and then on the basis of that I issue a report. The report basically says you have breached the act or not.
The result of which is your breach is exposed. To some extent, your reputation is ruined or at least besmirched. That’s all I can do. I can’t have the final anything. I have just exposed the wrongdoing of the person.
Senator Marshall: Last question is: All the reports that you issue on individual complaints, are they all made public? I know we as senators get some of them, but are they all released publicly?
Mr. von Finckenstein: Everything is confidential, everything — our interaction is confidential, et cetera. The person being investigated can release, but I don’t, except for the final report. If there is an investigation and the investigation finds it, or whether I investigated it and came to nothing, I will make it public. Or, most likely, I investigated it and here are the following things that happened.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is for Ms. Maynard.
You say that 85% of files are on hold; that’s a pretty difficult situation. Do you have a mandate, as Commissioner, to help departments adopt better practices in open data management? That’s the root of the problem, to a degree. If we had better practices, we’d have better access to data, so you’d have fewer complaints.
Ms. Maynard: My mandate is really to investigate the complaints I receive. I don’t have an educational mandate like other commissioners do. I see it as part of my responsibility to provide information on the decisions we make and how we interpret the law. We issue guidelines with regard to the law as such and its application, but for the tools and application of the law, that should come from Treasury Board. They are the ones with the competence and mandate to apply the law. They are there to help institutions set up processes and templates, and they also issue directives on the application of the law. Just by making decisions in our investigations and publishing them, we educate the institutions in this respect. When we do a systemic investigation where we study processes and problems within an institution, again, we publish a report and send a message to other institutions to look at the recommendations and conclusions that have been issued, and to use them as inspiration to change certain processes that are not effective within their own institution.
The Chair: They’re inspired by it?
Ms. Maynard: Some of them, yes.
Senator Forest: My other question is this: does Treasury Board, the entity with the mandate, shoulder it? This is a major issue. There’s unease about this problem. You’re overwhelmed, there are 85% of files on hold, but if we had better management of open data, it would help reduce this pressure. There’s a downward spiral.
Ms. Maynard: Treasury Board has to issue directives and guidelines. It’s really up to the departments to manage and fulfill these obligations. If it’s not a priority for a department, that’s where we see complaints increase. For other institutions, we see that information management is important and that there is transparency by default. In these cases, we receive far fewer complaints. You’re right: If the law were respected and applied appropriately, and if deadlines were respected, we’d surely have fewer complaints.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Mr. Chair, my colleague Senator Dalphond had an excellent exchange with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. I’d like to give her some speaking time, if I may.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much. Continuing in the same vein, Bill C-290 was passed unanimously in the House of Commons, with the support and vote of the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board. This bill brings, for the first time, improvements to the law that governs you.
I’ll be speaking to the Senate this afternoon to start the debate so we can try to wrap this up quickly.
In your opinion, if this bill is passed and we eliminate the somewhat vague finding that a complaint must be made in good faith to be admissible — which can take some time to assess — will that simplify your work and help operations or do you, on the contrary, expect more complaints? Or both?
Ms. Solloway: A little of both. I think that, by and large, what’s being proposed is positive. However, I’ve only been in the job a short time. My understanding is that this will change the character of our mandate. In other words, up to now, our mandate has focused on serious cases of mismanagement and so on. Also, according to jurisprudence and everything that came before me, right now it’s aimed at the most serious cases, the extremely serious things, to the point where it would shock the conscience of the Canadian public.
I think the changes in Bill C-290 will lower the eligibility criteria.
So, in my opinion, we’ll certainly have more cases. This will certainly create a lot more work for us, because we have to consider the fact that when there is a well-founded case, we have to present it to Parliament; we have to have a report that is worthy of Parliament and this complicates our work at all levels. That’s fine, if we have the resources we’re ready to do it; we have no objection as long as we have the resources to do it.
Senator Dalphond: So, it is increasingly urgent that Treasury Board cast a positive eye on your requests for budget increases?
Ms. Solloway: Yes. I have to say that we didn’t do this off-cycle budget request because of Bill C-290. It’s really just because of the amount of work we have right now. If our mandate changes, we’ll have to do an analysis to see how we can meet all the future obligations of the law.
Senator Dalphond: I would say that one of the important parts of the reform that is planned is to give more protection, that it be better defined against reprimands, retaliation, and especially that there be more remedies and actions to protect whistle-blowers. That’s not your main concern; you’ll have more cases of complaints for reprimand, which is a form of punishment for whistle-blowing.
Ms. Solloway: Indeed. This extends the definition of reprimand.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Gignac, are you satisfied with your colleague’s questions? Perfect.
[English]
Senator Smith: Ms. Maynard, the federal government has initiated several cost-cutting programs over the last while. You made it clear that access to information is a statutory obligation for the government and a quasi-constitutional right of Canadians. Therefore, it should not be subject to budget cuts.
I would like to get your sense on whether you feel the access to information and privacy teams within your departments and agencies are adequately staffed. We talked about budget shortfalls, but what more needs to be done? If you had a three bullet-point program, what would your program be, not to get right sized but to get your department to that next evolutionary step?
Ms. Maynard: Having an independent mechanism of funding is the first thing because that way, if my inventory increases, I can come to Parliament and provide you with information about why additional funding is required. If the complaints are going down because administratively, they are finally being responded to and there are less complaints, I can report to Parliament about not having the need for extra funding.
I really believe that that independence should be within the act. That would definitely give us more flexibility, and, at the same time, make sure that Parliament is the one receiving my demands and receiving my reporting, my accountability too.
Senator Smith: That could happen.
Ms. Maynard: I’ve been told it has been asked for by many agents of Parliaments in the past. I think the Auditor General of Canada has been also requesting an independent funding mechanism. We had something that was sort of a pilot project in 2007 where the Privy Council Office, or PCO, and the Parliament were involved. It disappeared, but we don’t really know why the committees that were in place at the time were dissolved. There are few answers.
But the act, for me, is reopening in 2025. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has recommended adding an independent mechanism in the act, so I’m hopeful that the government will respond positively to that.
Senator Smith: Mr. Dufresne, Elections Canada’s departmental plan highlights its preparation for the forty-fifth general election, which includes improving voter experience at the polls by modernizing the election process. You talked about various elements when you first gave your summation of the number of employees, election preparation, et cetera. What would be the top three elements that you want to put into place and make sure they are in place so that you have the proper tools to be able to support this next election?
Mr. Perrault: Senator Smith, that would be for me. The number one thing I would want, but I cannot have, is more certainty on the electoral calendar, as that’s the nature of my role.
For us, one of the key priorities for the election is modernizing the voting process. I talked about the introduction of an electronic voter list that will pave the way for a number of improvements moving forward.
Another priority for me is better serving Indigenous electors in the country and, in particular, serving Indigenous communities in remote parts of the country. We have been making efforts to reach out to those communities. We now have some flexibility in the legislation to provide less than four days of advance voting. In many of those communities, which are typically low population, fly-in communities, it is neither a desirable nor possible to have the full four days of advance voting. There is no staff to support that, and the population would not need that.
We now have the flexibility to provide more tailored services to those communities, and we are actively, through our returning officers, working with them, and results are now showing that we have good plans to provide better services in those remote communities for the next election. That is certainly an area of improvement for us.
Senator Smith: Mr. Dufresne, I apologize for the confusion. I have “vacation lag” in my head.
Mr. Dufresne: That is a compliment.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for the Privacy Commissioner.
Thank you for sharing your work in promoting public awareness of privacy issues among Canadians. Can you elaborate further on the main risks to the privacy of Canadians and what can be done to better protect it?
Mr. Dufresne: The main risk is that we are living in a world that has more and more digital information. Personal information and otherwise is used to fuel the economy, innovation and so on. I think the pace of change makes it so that sometimes Canadian and citizens around the world can feel that they are helpless in terms of their privacy and helpless in terms of having to use this technology, and the price of it is their privacy.
I think we need to push back hard against that and to say that it is not a zero-sum game. We can have these innovations and technology, but it is incumbent on those organizations who develop them, who benefit financially from them, to make sure they do so in a way that protects the fundamental privacy rights of Canadians and of citizens around the world. It’s important for citizens to know that they have robust institutions that will protect them, that will protect their privacy, that it’s not delegated to consumers, when they’re buying things, and they’re asked to share all sorts of information such as their birthday, consent, browsing history, all those things. Sometimes Canadians find it’s difficult to refuse this.
Indeed, that’s what we found this summer when we did our sweep with international partners. The way these questions are asked often makes it very difficult to answer in a way that protects your privacy.
This needs to stop. The result of our sweep has called out organizations to stop this. The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision on Facebook last week has issued strong statements in terms of ensuring these consent policies can’t be in long, legalistic language, and it can’t be such that it is extremely difficult for someone to know what will be done with their data.
That’s all the more important now with artificial intelligence. With artificial intelligence, we can do more and more with information.
I have said previously that data is used to fuel innovation, but we need to use innovation to protect data. We need to ensure that we use all of that innovation, all of those skills and technology to protect privacy.
We will continue to do things like our investigations and our reports calling out organizations and calling out Parliament to increase the remedies for privacy violations to make it such that organizations have less of an incentive to use personal information.
We can see privacy touching so many other areas, such as cybersecurity, national security, the financial sector and fighting financial crime. We issued an important decision last year against Aylo Holdings, the owner of the Pornhub website. We found that their protections for privacy were significantly deficient; they were taking sexual images without the consent of individuals. We called that out. We called out their mechanisms for correcting that information, and we are currently in discussions with the organization for them to hopefully comply with this order.
But again, if Parliament gives my office order-making powers and the ability to issue fines, that would be done by now. We need to do more so that Canadians’ privacy is protected earlier and at less cost to them in terms of time and money.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: I have a question for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I’m just wondering, do you feel you have the necessary human and financial resources to carry out your mandate?
Mr. von Finckenstein: Yes, we have asked for and received an increase of 3% of our budget. And our budget, the way we have it right now, the way we’ve structured it, I feel I have the necessary means to carry out the job.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My question is for the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Mr. Perrault. I’m wondering if you can comment on the voter turnout for the recent by-elections, how that differs from a general election, and why the percentage of Canadians who vote in general elections has consistently been lower than it was prior to the early 1990s, I believe.
Mr. Perrault: There are a few things around that. First, as an electoral managing body, we are focusing more on barriers than on turnout. There are many factors that lead to turn out, including political motivation. We tend to stay away from drivers of turnout, but we are interested in that. That’s one thing.
If you look at typical by-election turnout, it tends to be very low. We normally see around 25% turnout in a by-election. In the last few by-elections, they have been unusually high. I believe the preliminary number last night was 39% for both by‑elections. We’ve seen higher numbers in Toronto–St. Paul’s as well. These are somewhat unusual numbers for by-elections. It shows that there is probably political interest in those by‑elections.
When you look at trends of turnout over several decades, it has gone up and down. We did see a significant long-term declining trend from the 1960s onward. It did go back up in 2015, and it is not at the rock-bottom point that we had, but it varies. In the last election, it was lower than in 2019. This was the pandemic election and was probably an important factor in that.
Of course, we are interested in making sure that voters who wish to participate do not face barriers. We are focusing on communities like Indigenous electors who sometimes face barriers and young Canadians, providing them the information they need to have in order to be able to exercise their right to vote.
In the case of young Canadians, 18 to 24, there is a lower registration rate. That’s a problem because if they are not registered, they won’t have their voter information card and the same basic information that other Canadians are getting. We strive to improve youth registration, and we have made significant progress in that regard. We also use social media and different avenues that we otherwise would not use to reach those audiences.
The issue of turnout is a very complex area. There are many factors, and I think our role is really to look at barriers and make sure whether they are physical or information barriers that we remove them.
Senator Ross: My question is for Mr. Perrault. Recently I sat on the provincial Electoral Boundaries and Representation Commission in New Brunswick, so I’m interested in the impact that the review has had federally.
I’m just wondering what kind of resources you’ll need to deploy to implement the changes. What is the cost? What will it take to be ready for the upcoming election in that regard?
Mr. Perrault: As indicated in my remarks — I’ll expand on it — for a number of months after the commissions terminate their work and the new representation order is proclaimed, we now have clarity as to the future map, but that map is not in force. It does not take effect until the first dissolution that occurs seven months after the proclamation. We have that period of time to start looking at the changes we need to make to our IT systems, and those have been completed.
Meanwhile, we continue to operate, as I’ve indicated, under the existing map. We’ve had to appoint new returning officers. In many cases, we have returning officers that have served under the previous maps as well as the new maps, but there is about a 30% new contingency of returning officers for this electoral cycle.
As of April, because that was seven months after the proclamation of the orders, we now know that the next dissolution will result in a general election to be conducted under the new maps. From that point on, returning officers under the new maps were given the mandate to revisit their polling divisions, to align and readjust them to take into account those new maps. That was done over the summer. It has been finalized. There are a few things to finalize as we speak, but I would say that we are done in terms of the implementation.
I don’t have a specific figure for that because these are disbursed costs. I can try to come back and see what we have. The cost of the commission’s work overall was $14.8 million, but then the implementation costs are disbursed through different activities that we conduct.
Senator Ross: As you prepare for an election in the coming year, what do you think the impact of implementing changes or Bill C-65 will be on your staffing?
Mr. Perrault: First, Bill C-65, as we indicated earlier, is still before the House at second reading, so it hasn’t gone through the committee stage yet. I have yet to appear on the bill.
One of the important considerations for me in a minority context is getting ready to implement a change of rules. Some of these rules require more changes than it might appear. For instance, when you’re looking at adding two days of advanced voting, there is a range of IT systems that need to be changed for that in order to reflect the pay of poll workers and the location of the polling sites. These are all embedded in our IT systems.
We have done a review of that. We’ll be informing the committee of those changes, and we’re looking at an implementation plan. Depending on the timing of that bill, assuming it does receive Royal Assent, we may or may not be able to deliver all of the changes in time for the next election — again, depending on the timing of that election.
There are a lot of moving parts right now. I talked about certainty earlier on, and of course, I was joking, but there are a lot of moving parts — new maps, new rules, new system changes and new pay systems. All these have to fit and be ready to operate whenever the election is called.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Mr. von Finckenstein, in addition to how many examinations are currently in progress through your office, I’m interested in how many relate to the concerns being raised by some parliamentarians about increased concerns around misinformation and polarization, which is fuelling, of course, a lack of trust in institutions, including Parliament.
I’m curious, in addition to how many investigations you have regarding those, as to what ways you see those trends affecting conflict of interest guidelines in the future, as well as integrity concerns that you deal with and whether you’re looking at remedial steps that your office may be recommending.
Mr. von Finckenstein: That’s a lot of questions. First, I have no investigations going on right now. I have pre-investigations where I have been asked by members of Parliament to look into matters that are confidential, so I can’t tell you how many I have. Obviously, the person who is being considered, you have to be in contact with, and it is up to her or him if they decide to make it public. It may leak, but generally, it is kept confidential because there is no need to make it public if it doesn’t result in an investigation.
The thing about my office is that everything is maximum confidentiality, and it is up to the target to release unless we decide to do an investigation. At that point in time, it invariably comes out, because technically, I could conduct it confidentially, et cetera. But it is usually when there is an investigation that there has obviously been a lot of publicity and the person themselves wants the process to be public because he or she hopes to be cleared. Once an investigation is created, it’s basically open — the fact of the investigation is open. What we do and who we talk to, et cetera, is confidential. The outcome I will make public and I will inform whoever is responsible whether that is the Speaker of the House or the Prime Minister.
What was the other question?
Senator Pate: What are you looking at regarding remedial recommendations?
Mr. von Finckenstein: Our job is to expose, et cetera. We can make recommendations as to what should be the appropriate remedy. We usually don’t; we leave it up to the person, because it really damages the exposure of the conflict. There is nothing provided in the act — obviously, I cannot make an accommodation, but I would be very hesitant to do it unless I see it as required in this particular issue.
In terms of remedial, we really emphasize the educational part, educating MPs and government employees. As I say, we have an online tool for MPs now. We are in the process of doing one for appointed officials. The key to all of this is prevention and finding ways to handle conflict rather than trying to find conflicts, investigate and point fingers. We are not cops. We are there to help you handle conflict. Any good person will have conflicts and needs help in order to go through the myriad rules we have.
The Chair: That’s the end of our meeting. I want to remind witnesses to please submit written responses to the clerk by the end of the day on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, if it’s possible.
[Translation]
I would also like to remind senators that the next meeting will be tomorrow, September 18, at 6:45 pm. We will begin our study on the practice of including non-financial matters in bills carrying out the provisions of budgets and economic statements.
This is a request we received from the Senate called the “Senator Tannas Motion”. Senator Tannas will appear as a witness.
Thank you all and thank you to the witnesses. We always aim for an ideal of transparency, and I hope you have the support and the means to achieve that ideal. I think it’s important for our democracy.
I had many questions to ask, but time does not permit. However, I think you’ve done an excellent job of explaining your situation. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)